Reviewing PhD Applications: A stream of consciousness

In another effort to “de-mystify” the PhD selection process, during this past cycle of reviewing dozens of applications I kept notes of good and bad things that stood out to me. If a personal statement was structured particularly well, I made a note. If a section of a CV seemed disorganized or was missing important information, I made a note. I did the same during interviews as well. In the end, this led to a pretty large list of tips for applying to PhD programs. (Note: obviously, I don’t include the specifics of any applications here, or have any identifiable information. Just general do’s and don’t’s as I made my way through the stack on my desk.)

This cycle felt overwhelmingly competitive. Many amazingly accomplished people didn’t receive invites for interviews or admission. While perfectly crafting your CV and other details of your application isn’t a ticket to admission, you want every part of your application to be high-quality.

This is very much a stream-of-consciousness. These were quick (sometimes blunt) in-the-moment thoughts with very little editing after the fact. I wanted to give a behind-the-scenes view into the brain of someone reviewing applications. I think for the most part, you’ll agree with this advice. In some cases, you may disagree. That’s ok too.

As always, keep in mind every reviewer is drastically different. If I’ve learned anything about this process, it’s that professors can often evaluate candidates in wildly different ways. Everyone is looking for something different. Everyone has their preferences, and pet peeves. Take this blog as just one more data point in the infinite spectrum of opinion.

The Application

If you have major awards or scholarships, it can help to briefly describe these when listing them on your CV. For example, if you have a scholarship that is a prestigious full-ride at your institution, don’t expect me to know that. Make a brief note next to the line on your CV with a description.

If you have a strong research background but are interested in exploring a different area for your PhD, it is really worth spending the time in the Personal Statement explaining your motivation for this shift. **It is completely ok to want to change directions.** But outline why you have such a strong interest in labs that differ from your previous experience.

^this is especially true if your major differs from the major of the PhD program. If you are physics, bio, neuro, etc and applying to Biomedical Engineering, it helps us understand your motivation if you explain this pursuit 

When going through applications, I have developed a workflow of: CV, transcript (if a low-ish GPA or lack of engineering background), rec letter, personal statement.

I find it helpful if you list dates of events in the personal statement. For ex: “In the 2022 academic year…” rather than “In my sophomore year….” It makes it easier to cross-reference with the CV and other aspects of the application. 

In the Research Experiences section of your CV, provide the full name of the PI or research advisor so I can easily cross reference with the letters of rec. This is way more helpful than the name of the lab (ex: the “Atomic Physics Lab”), the department, or research center. In some cases for applicants I think may be a good fit for my lab, I’ll look up the PI and their work to get a sense of the research.

A surprising amount of people have presented at a national or international conference but only mention it in a personal statement. This should absolutely be on a CV!! Also include any local symposiums too.

When asking for a letter of recommendation….be sure to ask for a strong letter of rec. If they cannot write a strong one I would ask someone else (unless you do not have another option).

If you have a paper in preparation, submitted, or in-review and mention it in your CV and/or personal statement this info really needs to be confirmed in the PI’s letter of recommendation as well. It’s not a good look otherwise and raises a red flag for me. It feels as if you’re trying to get a leg up in the review process by hinting at a publication that may or may not come to fruition.

Personal statements rarely have headings, but they can be useful to the reviewers. These heading are flexible and there are a ton of ways to go about structuring the personal statement. Having major section headings like: academic year research experiences, summer research experiences, outreach, future interests, and why you’re interested in our program can really help guide my eyes.

I’m a sucker for a good list of “interests and hobbies” on a CV (emphasis on good)

I don’t really like when presentations are listed and you weren’t the one presenting. If someone else presented and you are on the poster author list it just doesn’t mean too much to me. What should I takeaway from that? Others may disagree with me. 

The “Presentations” or “Conferences” section of the CV should include a full citation. Include the authors, type of presentation, title, conference, and year. Again - I mostly use this to cross-reference with other portions of the application.

In a CV, do not include “et al.” in the publication list (Unless maybe the list is outlandishly long). I really like to see who the PI was to cross-reference with your research experiences and LORs. Basically - if you publish with a PI I’d really like to see a letter from that PI.

Don’t mix presentations and papers within the same section on a CV. These should be separate. Mixing takes away from the fact that you’ve published.

It can look a little strange if you list multiple labs you are interested in and they all do wildly different work. (I’m torn on my own opinion here, because as an undergrad you should *not* be expected to know what you want to work on…but applications to a top program can be so outrageously competitive that the people with clear future interests tend to float to the top)

Reiterating the above point. A pretty conserved theme is that students that really have a clear research direction (i.e. neuro, immunology, cancer therapies, etc) tend to standout. Their personal statements are usually just very good and overlap very well with their research background. This SUCKS, because we shouldn’t expect students to know what you want to do at this state. But unfortunately there are enough of these candidates that they generally float to the top and feel like a safer bet compared to someone that lacks direction

^related again. Our department is direct-admit, not rotation based. From that standpoint, I have a strong leaning to extend offers to people who I think have a high likelihood of accepting the offer. If someone isn’t even sure they want to pursue neuro-related research, this makes makes it very risky on my part to extend an offer of admission.

For recommendation letters, I very much prioritize research advisors. It’s a dramatic downside if no recommendation letters are from a research advisor. Take this example: I often write letters for student who took my course. I can comment on their effort and abilities in the course. I can comment on whether they are a good student and engaged in the material. I have some insight into their communication skills and engineering knowledge. But I really have zero experience with how they operate and perform in a lab environment. I can extrapolate that they are probably a great researcher, but I don’t have any first-hand experience with that.

This is specific for engineering students, but it’s important to distinguish design projects and work in research labs. In the CV, I would have a “Research Experiences“ section that outlines work in research labs and “Projects” section lists design projects. Always include the timelines of when the work occurred in addition to the supervisor/PI

Please spell my name right

Probably one of the best things the majority of applicants can do to improve their personal statements is to elaborate on why they are interested in our program and a few specific labs. Most commonly, the personal statement includes a few short sentences at the end mentioning they are interested in X, Y and Z labs. Stronger  applications take their time with this section. They discuss the current work of the PI, how their background fits with the PI, and project they could potentially contribute to. You want to demonstrate that you’ve put a considerable amount of thought into Vanderbilt, our BME program, and these labs.

^^^To be more specific and phrase a different way: choosing a PhD program is one of the biggest decisions you will ever make. I want to see that you are taking that decision seriously with a lot of careful thinking.

Related - please accurately describe the work of the labs. It doesn’t need to be perfect, but if you really botch it up it’s not a good look.

Keep in mind every department has both primary and secondary faculty. In our department, secondary faculty can choose BME students, but they also have their primary departments (ECE, MechE, et), where they primarily recruit students. Some applications list only secondary faculty as the ones they are interested in. This is not an optimal choice. Also, if all the faculty you’re interested in have primary appointments in the another department (i.e. MechE), you’re probably applying to the wrong program.

Reach out to professors, but be mindful of how many emails you send. We get so many. If no response, send a follow up. If still no response, probably best just to move on. 

For our program, we send out invitations to interview in ~January. The interviews then take place in March. This ~3 month period is the best time to reach out to PI’s and get to know them in advance. Because you made it to this round, you are much more likely to receive a response from the PI and have a chance to chat in advance. 

Interviews

During interviews, be prepared to ask a lot of questions, not just answer questions. I tend to ask very few questions. I mostly want to answer questions you have about the lab. If you don’t have a ton of questions about my lab, our program, and Vanderbilt, it can kind of suggest you aren’t thinking deeply about this very big decision you need to make for a PhD program

A good question for a PI is about their mentorship style. How often do they meet with students? Are they hands-on or hands-off? Importantly, you can then cross-reference these answers with their lab to see if there is a disconnect

There is a lot of chit-chat about prospective students among PI’s. If I’m really interested in a student, and you also impress multiple other faculty, that can be a big bonus. This is an incentive to do well in all your interviews, not just the labs you are most interested in

A really good way to phrase “what current projects do you have open?” can be “what future directions are you most excited about a new student taking on?”

Back to asking me questions (rather than me asking you questions)…I really like when you ask tough questions. Sometimes a new and insightful question comes up I haven’t heard before, and that really catches my eye. Multiple of my current lab members did this in their interviews, and those questions have stuck with me. It highlights the type of relationship I hope to have with my lab members. I hope to have a back-and-forth dynamic, not just a top-down dynamic.

Interviews can be wildly different yet still impressive. Some focus on mentorship and future projects. Some end up being broader scientific discussions about the field and big open questions. I don’t have a huge preference. The most important thing is to demonstrate you’re thinking deeply about things. 

End

Helpful maybe? I hope so.

-Daniel